Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 22

< May 21	May 23 >

May 22

Template:Dropimage

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dropimage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to {{hidden}} or may violate MOS:COLLAPSE in articles. seems to be used to hide large image galleries? Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not obviously useful for any MoS-compliant purpose, especially over and above {{hidden}} or the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hidden should add some options from this, like width and align, instead of assuming people know CSS. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:GFDL-1.2-en

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, unused and no objections. Let me know if there this causes a problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-1.2-en (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used on any files, although there are a few other links to it. This was previously a "subject to disclaimers" template, but the disclaimers were removed at some point, so they don't apply to files tagged with this template after that point, so currently it is a duplicate of {{GFDL-1.2}}. Commons has a template with the same name which is subject to disclaimers, so if someone starts using this for new files, this is going to cause problems when those files are moved to Commons as people accidentally will add disclaimers. As the template doesn't seem to be used for any files, I'm not sure if we need the template at all. If kept, the disclaimers need to be restored so that there won't be any confusion when files are moved to Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Durham college

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Durham college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to {{infobox residential college}}, e.g., compare old vs. new. Frietjes (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IconCon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IconCon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all instances were used to prefix a portal link, and have been replaced by a simple call to {{portal-inline}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Section-diffuse

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section-diffuse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template appears to be misused. Among the transclusions I found:

On Karl Malone, it was acting as a stand-in for {{trivia}}, as it was tagging an unsourced bullet list of "notable games".
On Kifu, it appeared to be misused as a stand-in for {{sections}}, as the article has no sections.
On Luo (surname), it was being used as a stand-in for {{split section}}, as it was tagged on a long section of "Lo" surnames.
On Moovit, ‪Mechlorethamine‬, Asymmetric dimethylarginine, and 1,1,3,3-Tetramethylguanidine it was apparently being used as a stand-in for {{expand-section}}, as it was on sections that were short but contained valid info.
On Mark Murphy (singer), it was used for a quote farm, which just should've been removed outright.
On Assiah, I have no idea what the intent was, as again, the article has no sections.
On Fifth Battle of the Isonzo, it was on a "see also" section that was perfectly valid. But if the "See also" section were a problem, we already have {{too many see alsos}}.
On William Edouard Scott, the use was actually proper, as the article is very essay-like and one section had the header "conclusion".
On Ryumon Yasuda, it was used as a stand-in for {{list to prose}}, as the section in question was decently sourced but in timeline format.
On Billie Jean King, I have no idea what the tagger was going for — it was tagging two sections that were long but reasonably sourced and headlined.

In short, this template was transcluded on only ten articles, and nine of those were misuse. That's a whole lot of misuse. If a section is underdeveloped, it is far better to tag it with {{expand-section}} and give an explanation as to what sort of expansion is needed on that particular section. The problems for which this template was misused have their own templates, so redefining the template would be of no use. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can come up with theoretical use cases for this, but it plainly hasn't taken off and it's not obvious how to reduce its scope so as to make it easier to fix. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd say that the "Karl Malone", and "Fifth Battle of the Isonzo" are also valid uses, but there are better more specific templates for it. In the "Karl Malone" case, {{trivia}} also advises to relocate anything useful to somewhere else in the article so in essence this template is a superset of the trivia template. Similar with the "Fifth Battle of the Isonzo" case in that these related links in the see also section should be somehow integrated to the rest of the article. In any case, this template doesn't appear to be useful. I'd argue that situations like this are rare and can be covered under {{copyedit}} with an explanation on the talk page although it's likely nobody will ever do this either. I lean towards deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unnecessary, and better handled by a discussion on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Tpcleanup

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect to {{archiveme}}. If someone wants to actually merge it, go ahead and start a thread on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tpcleanup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rarely used. I found only two transclusions: Talk:Kitsch, where the archive bot was refusing to archive old, unsigned threads; and Talk:Rob Todd, where an apparent copy-paste job was messing up the page. As it stands, this template is extremely low-use (it doesn't even have a talk page), and any talk page in need of "cleanup" is better served by simply doing the cleanup yourself instead of slapping a template on. The only other "cleanup" I could think of that a talk page would need already has its own methods of being handled. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: It seems I'm not alone in this concern, as on April 1, an IP inquired on WikiProject Talk Pages about whether or not the template is still used. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "doing it yourself" on some of the 200k sized talk pages may break some people's computers. It needs to be properly documented into the cleanup process. And some people make a hash of cleanup anyways, meaning that those people should ask for help instead of doing it themselves. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Make a hash"? Also, I doubt anyone's editing Wikipedia on 486s. My mom's 10 year old iBook can handle this site just fine no matter how big the pages get. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saving pages over 100k have also caused save failures, and there's the Wikipedia warning of large pages over 32kB cause browser problems. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm someone who spends a fair amount of time editing on platforms that do have performance problems with huge pages. And I'm also one of the most active cleaner-upper of such pages. In general, there are three basic types of talk page problems: length (which causes problems relating to system load, data use, and readability, along with increasing the possibility of old dead threads being replied to by mistake), chronology and missing sigs (especially on antediluvian pages that have comments from before SineBot or even the formation of the talk page guidelines) and miscellaneous junk (messy headers, broken code, overflowing text). The second is really just an extension of the first (it primarily relates to older pages that were never archived). And the first is already covered by {{archiveme}}. I'd just add a little text to {{archiveme}} to cover the second and third problems and then redirect this there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of {{archiveme}}. Merging there sounds like a plan. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to {{archiveme}}? Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.